Gun Regulation Survey Results

sigpros said:
Lets just say my grandpa passed away and owned 20 guns and left them to me. I shouldn’t have to go do a 4473 on every gun and pay a transfer fee on every gun which at a minimum would be at least $400 a lot of places around here are $50-$75 a transfer. But I don’t agree with background checks on private sales either. If a buddy and I want to do a trade on some rifles I shouldn’t have to go pay another fee to do it
Click to expand...

I am not in favor of intra-family FFL checks, but for clarification’s sake if you got 20 at once as part of the same “transaction” that would mean one 4473, not 20.
 
This should be a sobering moment. The results here should Illustrate that this same survey if given to a sample that better reflects the broader population would most likely show a significant number of these ideas garnering broad support. This is a conversation that is going to take place in this country like it or not. We can either chose to be proactive and sit at the table to further our interests or we sit on our cold dead hands and be put on the menu.
 
Last edited:
Thanks, VG. The survey results were personally helpful because on a few survey items I was in a small minority. It got me thinking more about reasons why so many other people thought differently, and if it was worth reconsidering my own position. Admittedly, my starting point was not having given most of these ideas much thought before.

There are 3 primary factors that influence my thinking towards gun regulation.

#1 “Shall not be infringed”. A couple of months ago I read the entire constitution, and this phrase, above any other, stood out like a blazing beacon. “Shall not be infringed” is strong language, but what exactly does it mean? A whole lot of people believe it means unambiguous free reign of transfer and use of weapons. Ten people voting “yes” for Apache helicopters, tactical nukes, etc. is unsurprising to me. IMO many states with restrictive gun laws do not pass the sniff test for our 2nd amendment right. Either the constitution needs to be amended, or many gun laws need to be overturned. Hundreds of judges over the course of decades disagree, and I will follow their decisions and obey the law, even if I believe some of their interpretations of the law are wrong, and violate the 2nd amendment.

#2 I’ll gladly participate in discussions on gun control legislation with ardent gun control advocates when they lay to rest proposals that overwhelming punish law-abiding gun owners and benefit criminals. A lot of this proposed legislation enjoys support among the liberal base, but has little real world value. The south side of Chicago is the best example I can think of. Show me gun legislation that stops black-on-black firearm gang violence in Chicago while increasing gun access to law-abiding Illinoisans, and you’ve got my attention.

#3 Any new gun legislation must first consider the current high # of firearms currently in circulation in America, who has them, and what different types of guns are used for. It does no good to ban suppressors when 99.9% of the suppressor market is law-abiding gun owners. It does no good to restrict long guns when 99.99% of long guns are not used it violent crimes, etc. Why require handgun permits at a fee when 100% of gangbangers already have a handgun and won’t bother to pay a fee for a permit?
 
I declined to offer my opine. Pretty sure I'm odd man out on this one. I can pass a lifescan, retired LEO who does not trust many with weapons these days.
Good effort tho.
 
Randi : Social Security Numbers were NOT to be used for identification purposes . How did that work out ?

Vikingsguy : Interesting survey and responses . Did you do this just for the fellows or do you have a case and was gathering information ?

My responses probably would mirror hank4elk's responses, but I enjoyed reading the questions and answers, thank you.
 
Europe said:
Vikingsguy : Interesting survey and responses . Did you do this just for the fellows or do you have a case and was gathering information ?
Click to expand...
No case - I wouldn't use HT for that (andt I don't do this type of law anyway).

I did it because I was curious, and to move to a level of granularity in the conversation that might elucidate some common ground. Bouncing back a forth between, "what part of shall not infringe don't you understand" and "but the children - ohhh the horror" is not very interesting or useful. So, nothing more than a personal whim is what drove this.
 
Last edited:
VikingsGuy said:
No case - I wouldn't use HT for that (andt I don't do this type of law anyway).

I did it because I was curious, and to move to a level of granularity in the conversation that might elucidate some common ground. Bouncing back a forth between, "what part of shall not infringe don't you understand" and "but the children - ohhh the horror" is not very interesting or useful. So, nothing more than a personal whim is what drove this.
Click to expand...
That elusive "middle ground"

I enjoyed it, thanks for taking the time
 
I found that very interesting indeed.
Obviously not relevant to me where I live so didn't post.
Thanks for the thread.
Cheers
Richard
 
Good stuff
asking for a friend " can you buy a missle online?"
 
The way I look at the question of limiting destructive devices ect is this:

If I the everyday citizen can't be trusted with it, how is it that the absolute worst of us should be in charge of who and how these types of things should be employed? Look at all the death and destruction we all ready allow them to engage in both here and around the world. If I had the magic wand, it would all go away. That isn't the reality we live in unfortunately. I don't want to own a tank or even grenades, I have seen what they can do. I really don't want our government having them either. When we talk about gun (or in this case weapons) control, the discussion should be about limiting government access to a level that limits their ability to do violence to us. The government is supposed to be accountable to us. In my mind, if they can own it, we all should be able to.

And yes, I understand that this is idealist/utopian type thinking and the cat is all ready out of the bag. I know most of you still believe politicians are good people trying to serve their fellow man. I don't, and you won't change my opinion on that. I just wanted to try and clarify why I answered the question that way.
 
VikingsGuy said:
I am not in favor of intra-family FFL checks, but for clarification’s sake if you got 20 at once as part of the same “transaction” that would mean one 4473, not 20.
Click to expand...
Well yes and no. Isn’t there like only 4 spots on the 4473? And then the ffl has to do extra paperwork which I’m sure no ffl is going to log 20 guns on one sheet and for one transfer charge. And I am not sure but doesn’t the firearms have to be of the same type? Like handgun or long gun? Or AOW?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

VikingsGuy
Gun Regulation Survey
5 6 7
Replies
122
Views
17K
Shangobango
S
cheeser
Showcasing the DNR: Taking stock of Michigan's deer harvest
Replies
4
Views
1K
millerkiller77
millerkiller77
VikingsGuy
A "common sense" proposal that will piss off both sides
45 46 47
Replies
932
Views
76K
RG300
R
The Hedgehog
Rinella article.. CUT AND PASTED
19 20 21
Replies
400
Views
54K
bbright
bbright
Stay Sharp
An evaluation of outdoor gear care products (corrosion, lube, etc)
Replies
17
Views
3K
geetar
geetar

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
114,025
Messages
2,041,641
Members
36,433
Latest member
x_ring2000

Share this page

Back
Top